"You guys need to read Stephan Molyneux!" What a terrible way to end a debate.

@jzoobs

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao

@alexdolianitis2963

3 жыл бұрын

Yea that didn't age well

@StoveToTheFace

2 жыл бұрын

lol that makes me think of Peter "over hype my video games" Molyneux.... edit: Just the last name and BS spewed, I'm not calling Peter a white nationalist.

@Alex-0597

2 жыл бұрын

@@StoveToTheFace Yeah, I was confused by that as well when I heard of Stefan. I spent a long time wondering if they were brothers.

@wj3186

2 жыл бұрын

When you are so privileged that you don't realize you are reading the work of a deranged white nationalist.

"Philosophy is a science, just as math is." lol

@jonathontrewin5140

4 жыл бұрын

Philosophy is a science. It produces knowledge and concepts. It makes assumptions and asserts values, just as science does. It just doesn't follow the same methodology that modern science tends to. If done honestly (read: not dogmatically) it should be just as, if not more productive than 'science'. However, pOlITicAl PhiLOsoPhY often comes down to, choosing an ideology and just holding onto it for dear life, at which point it's not philosophy anymore, just politics.

@jonathontrewin5140

4 жыл бұрын

@Messages In a bottle it depends, i believe that to the extent that OP intended the term, it's not false to say that philosophy is a science. Etymologically too. But I think you're right too.

@jonathontrewin5140

4 жыл бұрын

@@anahata3478 faaaar from it. I'm a philosophy graduate. The idea that philosophy doesn't produce knowledge seems hard to reconcile with the many concepts and terms that are in daily use that have their origin in philosophy. I'd say that philosophy is uniquely positioned to critique the knowledge-production process, but even this is by way of the production new concepts and schemata.

@aa888zz

4 жыл бұрын

>It doesn't produce knowledge by repetition of experiments I can't speak to philosophy, but you are wrong on the math side. I also find it ironic, given that "science" was really born out of people like Newton that used math to study nature. Also, many of Einsteins theories were born out of applying non-euclidean geometry to study physics. The notion that "science" is only born out of experiments is just laughable. But to my main point. Math is currently being aided by advanced computational power to do research through simulations.

@TheEvolver311

3 жыл бұрын

@@aa888zz Einstein had to be and was proven correct from observational experiments proving his hypothesis. Philosophy is only really useful in ethics and to a certain extent ethics is arbitrary. This why science-mathematics-civic/ethical philosophy all decoupled from one as another directly over 100 years ago, because it became clear that certain kinds of knowledge are not obtainable in valid ways via each method. The fact that we can formulate logically consistent philosophical statements that are empirically proven untrue and that we can scientifically accrue data that in no way informs us as to the proper ethical action should be evidence enough. Part of the frustration I have with Libertarianism is that they assert that their ethical philosophy is also scientific fact and that any evidence to the contrary is flawed in some untestable way, its dogmatism its fundamentalism of the worst sort.

I’ve used that line of questioning when debating libertarians, “you recognize that corporate influence is the corrupting factor in our government, what mechanism does your ideology have within it that will prevent corruption and not cause more?” I have yet to get an answer to this question.

@null8295

Жыл бұрын

who are you going to corrupt if there is no government?

@thedoctah1428

Жыл бұрын

@@null8295 if there’s no government what’s to stop me from monopolizing all the force in the country if I’m a billionaire?

@null8295

Жыл бұрын

@@thedoctah1428 a libertarian would tell you that monopolies are formed only when there is a government that protects them from competition

@thedoctah1428

Жыл бұрын

@@null8295 I wasn’t asking a libertarian I was asking you, and your response makes absolutely no sense lol.

@null8295

Жыл бұрын

@@thedoctah1428 I'm not a libertarian, so why caring about my own opinion? You said you didn't get an answer about your first question from any libertarian. I answered that question as a libertarian would have done.

A libertarian is simply somebody who arrests their understanding of economics one month into a freshman macro-econ class and thinks they have the subject on lock down.

@RiffJam71

8 жыл бұрын

A progressive is a critic without an argument #criticaltheory #cultiralmarxism

@theprogressivecynic2407

8 жыл бұрын

+mega jam Tell that to FDR, or LBJ, or MLK, or any of the other progressive leaders who made our nation far stronger despite endless regressive resistance.

@RiffJam71

8 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure you realize that is not what progressive means anymore. Any examples from the last 40 years? Anita Sarkeesian perhaps?

@PoliticalPlayer

8 жыл бұрын

+mega jam Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.

@JTempleton

8 жыл бұрын

+The Progressive Cynic So Milton Friedman "arrested his understanding of economics one month into a freshman macro-econ class'?

"we gotta get rid of the fascists... So there's this guy stefan molyneux"

@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025

Жыл бұрын

Right?? "Where's your sense of Jewish heritage, Sam? Now go read the anti-semitic ramblings of this unstable, hyper-racist neo-N*zi. We can talk about that great thinker's ideas over a knish."

"That's micro managing and you can't actually stop the rich anyways" Basically, hes a libertarian because hes given up.

@Kidomaru222

3 жыл бұрын

That's the most relatable a Libertarian could ever be tbh. It does feel hopeless, like, MOST of the time.

@Seattle-2017

Ай бұрын

And the rich sit there saying "That's exactly right. Mr. Libertarian! (heh heh - what a f***ing idiot)."

libertarianism = Self regulating utopian anarchy, driven by a unicorn based economic philosophy.

@kdawg717

7 жыл бұрын

I was really just kidding, but still you are correct about Libertarians not anarchists, they're just really really confused..

@kdawg717

7 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah this dude is totally out to lunch, I was speaking more in the general sense. I think the lack of continuity in libertarian politics is its weakness. Sure no political party should be purely monolithic in nature, but the libertarians seem to go from completely reasonable, to jet packs as transportation instead of roads. The libertarian debate was a perfect illustration of that. Haha

@kdawg717

7 жыл бұрын

Again you are correct. However I do see it a little differently. Political parties need to accept some level of internal variation just to survive. Weaker and usually older political parties start acquiring a level of internal variation that eventually becomes unsustainable. For example, if you're a reasonably moderate conservative or liberal, you are incapable with the more extreme elements of your own party at such basic and fundamental level those difference are not reconcilable . Thus the level of fracture witnessed in both the Democrat and Republican parties we see today. Libertarians, as a party, already have that problem and it hasn't even become a major player in American politics yet. So in a political sense they are DOA , in mio of course. And thank you for not yelling at me.

@joshualocicero6799

5 жыл бұрын

You mean actual economics

@joshualocicero6799

5 жыл бұрын

@@christiangarcia2616 yes im ibertarianism is synomous with anarchism some classical liberals stole the title

Fighting for a moral code but giving up because corruption is a possibility sorta sums up libertarian-ism

@sajfen

4 жыл бұрын

we have zero corruption today

@arcticwulf5796

2 жыл бұрын

@@sajfen less than with a free for all with might makes right laws

@sajfen

2 жыл бұрын

@@arcticwulf5796 And who advocates that? Be honest for once. Might makes right is government you know.

"Stalin was a Libertarian Socialist." lolwut?

@Zatzzo

Жыл бұрын

When does he say that?

So... You think government is evil because it's able to be corrupted by special interests and so your solution to that is to hand the reigns over to those special interests directly? Brilliant point, Einstein.

@RiffJam71

8 жыл бұрын

Jim Morrison's grave is located at Père Lachaise Cemetery in eastern Paris. ...... was interested in revolt, disorder, and chaos “to mean that he was an anarchist, a revolutionary, or, worse yet, a nihilist.

@lindsays1940

7 жыл бұрын

Hezekiah Ramirez I love your profile pic. I adore Jim Morrison!

One of the first things my college professor philosophy taught us was "Philosophy is not a science, here is why..."

Why do all these libertarians always have to profess their identity as a libertarian? They sound like religious fundamentalists. I guess in a way, they are.

@Socialism_on_Roids

9 жыл бұрын

A better question is if Libertarians are all about the market of ideas, why do they feel a need to create dozens of sock accounts just so they can bot videos with thumb downs? I looked back on some of Sam Seder's earlier videos on Libertarianism, Stefan Molyneux, or just debates in which Sam puts the onus on some Libertarian shmuck, and I'm starting to notice a pattern. All of the newer videos in which Libertarians/Libertarianism is the subject matter have substantially more likes than dislikes, but as time passes and people forget about older videos on Libertarians, the number of dislikes start to uptick substantially. Libertarians think they're being clever, but there has been an organized effort by Tea Partiers and Libertarians in botting videos critical of Libertarianism and the Austrian School since at least the Summer of 2009 when the Tea Party Express was holding training seminar sessions in which they were teaching Right-Wing activists how to cause mayhem against Progressives online. Back then, it was more obvious because they would hone in on and bot a new video with dislikes all at once. As time went on however, I think they have geared their tactics to something more insidious. More recently it seems, they are content to allow any new Progressive video critiquing their ideology a sort of grace period, perhaps a few months. After that, they start to open the floodgates and use sock accounts to bury videos critical of them long after they've assumed people have forgotten about them. We're dealing with an adversary that is employing much more patience in their methodology than previously thought, tactics used to make sure that their critics are less likely to be heard. We need to make an effort to go back to older videos on Libertarianism, specifically those posted by Sam Seder and the Young Turks in the last seven months, and do what we can to limit the damage. I wouldn't be surprised if they've started botting my older videos again.

@democrazy69

9 жыл бұрын

Activeassholeonroids The TP is about as libertarian as N. Korea is democratic. TP is nothing but the far-right establishment.

@bubblegumgun3292

9 жыл бұрын

Sotai hi guys hope i'm not to late for this party , yes i'm a libertarian but i didn't know there was a challenge, i might just come on the show, keep an eye for me, i'll say on the show i'm bubblegum gun on the show if i get on :P

@cnferguson5

6 жыл бұрын

Activeassholeonroids lol I've noticed that same thing.

@scrangos

6 жыл бұрын

libertarians are the crossfit of politics

I love how the libertarians homogenise the experience of being human; as if we are all the same and are all motivated by the same outcomes.

@exandil6029

2 жыл бұрын

Wait, don't they actually accuse everybody else of the same thing? 😹

This libertarian caller typifies a profound ignorance about the history and origins of the state. Rule of law and the state are the institutions that we've created as an antidote to tribalism and cronyism. That cronyism still exists to some degree (far less in Denmark than in the US) is a problem but it is not unique to the state. Favoritism and nepotism, might makes right, bribery, rule of men rather than rule of law. are what tribalism is all about. The reason the world is full of states and not tribes anymore is because the state is a preferable and more successful social organization. It is just mind blowingly idiotic to listen to libertarians talk about eliminating the world's problems by getting rid of the state. It is shocking that public schools aren't teaching the origins of political order and how the state evolved and why it is preferable to tribal, non state societies but apparently it doesn't teach that anymore or these libertarians are high school drop outs. These libertarians have an odd logic and morality. As Sam points out, just because government is responsible for pollution, doesn't mean that getting rid of government ends pollution and in fact, inevitably means more pollution because the govt does regulate pollution a task that would not exist without govt. If you think that companies that are restricted from polluting as much as they'd like to by the govt, will pollute less without government regulation, you've got a warped sense of logic. The irony is that the state IS mostly a reflection of powerful interests. The origins of the state long preceded democracy. The state exits to protect and balance various powerful interests. So, in regard to pollution, we probably have more environmental degradation than most people (if they bothered to give a damn) would accept. The same with economic inequality (most people have no idea the level of inequality that exists). So, the level of pollution that exists is a compromise between various interests that want to pollute more and citizen groups that want less. So to say that govt is responsible for most of the pollution is true but a naive way of making the point. Yes, since govt determines how much pollution will exist (as a matter of policy informed by various interest groups) it is responsible for it. Which really just means that people are responsible for it. The govt is the bureaucracy of a political process. It isn't, in our society, a dictatorship. What's interesting to me is that libertarianism has been on the rise since the 80s. Like the Tea Party, it seems to be reacting to what it sees as the failures of govt to protect its interests. Both are reactionary movements addressing the same failures of government that progressives decry. The difference is that progressives realize that govt is not only inevitable but necessary. Would you rather have people reform govt or corporate powers do it? That is really the choice. At least the Tea Party is acting politically even though I think they are mostly wrong. While many libertarians like to claim a superior position claiming that the govt is illusory and so has no authority over them, and that once people wake up and realize this, we can all live free. Pathetic. Childish. That's why Sam and others point out the idiocy of libertarianism.

"The state is evil!" "Philosophy is a science just as chemistry is!" "There's ALWAYS property rights!" "You sharpen a stick and you've got capital!" "Look up Stefan Molyneux and Murray Rothbard!" Also: confusing political hypothesises and thought experiments with scientific/technological hypothesises and projective developments. Sometimes, there's just too much fucking FAIL...

"If ppl send me cow's and chickens I'll take it" Can't say that I'm surprised

@whitehallavenue1752

Жыл бұрын

Dafuq is your point?

@Backhand77

Жыл бұрын

@@whitehallavenue1752 dude take a chill pill. If you don’t get you don’t get it.

Caller: "Corruption is rampant in government because special interests buy their way into it." Caller: "I'm a hardcore libertarian, and I see the only way to fix this problem is to remove the government entirely so that those special interests can run rampant. What could possibly go wrong? Obviously nothing, because it's all about voluntary interactions between individuals, not coercion." The fantasies these gullible fools believe are depressingly ridiculous.

Caller somehow thinks people outside government aren't corruptable.

I never debate libertarians because I learned long ago that it is mostly a phase that young politically and socially active people have to go through when they are in college. If we had better history teachers, civics teachers, and taught everyone anthropology we wouldn't be plagued by as many of them as we are.

@07Flash11MRC

6 ай бұрын

Libertarians, much like right wingers, are useful id!ots to the capitalist system we're al forced to live in and its global elite.

I absolutely love watching Sam Seder debate Libertarians. He's a smart and well educated man who can pick apart their arguments and make them look just silly.

If there is one human being I would love to meet up weekly to bitch about and mock idiots over coffee, it would be Sam Seder.

these people should set up a libertarian government in the ocean!

@BaronVonQuiply

2 жыл бұрын

Wasn't that basically The Principality of Sealandia, or am I wrong about that? (I had thought it was founded as a libertarian haven, but can't seem to confirm it now)

@simonblackwell3576

2 жыл бұрын

@@BaronVonQuiply I think they were referencing Bioshock and the city of Rapture

@BaronVonQuiply

2 жыл бұрын

@@simonblackwell3576 Oh, I never played the first one, just Bioshock Infinite.

@simonblackwell3576

2 жыл бұрын

@@BaronVonQuiply oh that’s cool, honestly this persons comment is seven years old so who even knows what they were talking about 😂

@BaronVonQuiply

2 жыл бұрын

@@simonblackwell3576 Lol, I didn't even notice the age when I commented. I was just on another Sam vs Libertarians binge. Thanks for bringing up Bioshock, that's likely what they were referring to.

"The difference is, again, because it is voluntary." Is it? Can people live without working? Sure, skilled people have a choice, but the low skilled are confronted with the choice, work for a pittance under poor conditions for long hours or starve to death. This is why millions of us clubbed together to fight for rights, to increase our freedom and controll over our own lives. We wanted a say in our lives and conditions and we will not hand it over to the capitalists like dullards.

Love the part where he says people just obtain "capital" by their own devices (the fisherman on the island example). Acquiring capital just doesn't happen by acquiring something of value. In order to acquire capital you have to first accumulate SURPLUS. It is the surplus of a good which then can allow someone to get access to capital.

lol they were having fun yelling at each other XD

This argument around 9:25 drives me crazy and is rather old. People are born into their governments and then indoctrinated into them. We have never been able to choose our gov. If left to are own modern day devices and one specific society/country was not brainwashed throughout childhood with government, authority and god then it very well could have turned into a modern day libertarian society... In the past, seriously? Let's think about that.. let's add religion to the mix... Which tells you how bad you/we are and how much we should hate ourselves for just being alive... Religion is only an extremely prevalent force in our life's since the dawn of man. How in the hell do you expect people to get together and trust one another to form a libertarian society with messages that religion give you? Yes we were extremely tribal creatures because we needed each other to survive. I would still strongly theorize a lot of people disagreed with the way things ran in the past, but when you need your society to survive you shut your damn mouth. We are getting out of our tribal and religion phases, hence the large increase and shouts for liberty. We no longer need each other for mere survival and are slowly growing tired of authority.

@downstream1152

8 жыл бұрын

+Illya Van Hoof Classic liberals asked the question "To what extent can a society infringe on an individuals natural rights of life, liberty and property?" John Locke believed that once an individual enters a society apart of these natural rights are given up. Such as taxes, the draft, and other powers that are given to a government by the people. Passively or intentionally. That the government takes away these rights in order to preserve them. Giving Security to society. Anarcho-Capitalist believe that no authority to take their natural rights away in any way. That valid only contracts between knowledgeable parties is the only way to have a truly free society. The question that arises is, who is going to enforce these contracts. What about police, fire, or military? These questions are extremely hard to wrap ones head around if your honestly trying to make it work. Just like they were arguing about, there has never been an example we can study. Though that doesn't mean its wrong based off that point. If early Americans had no example of a society in which apart of the population wasn't servile, ending slavery still wouldn't be wrong.) Belloc Hilaire wrote a book called The Servile State, in which he explains that a collectivist society always leads to servility. And that a Capitalist society also leads to servility. However in his examples he always has the cause of servility in the hands of the government. Which leads me to think more about the anarcho-capitalist theory. Collectivism or socialism doesn't appeal to me whatsoever because it will always take the natural rights of an individual away. Examples of socialism that somewhat work always lead into capitalism. China was supposed to be communist but they adopted capitalism somehow, that is why there is over a billion people living in squalor as a few are ungodly wealthy. The living standards are better in the US with the type of government we have. Thomas Hobbes concept of the LeviThan is a force that cannot be killed or overthrown in any way. He believes government should be so big (like the LeviaThon) that it could easily remove any threat to its people. Also that its citizens cannot rebel even if their "rights" are infringed on. That it is better for people to live under authority rather then left to their own devices because man is naturally evil. I think the US government is similar, though we may be falling as Rome did, from the inside out. I don't know what is right. Just some scattered thoughts. So maybe to answer your question, anarcho-capitalist want a society in which you willingly give your time and money to whom you choose. Not one that forces you to pay for things you do not agree with by threat of imprisonment. Which is taking away your liberty.

@ReiEmeraldTakedo

8 жыл бұрын

+David Campos In anarcho-capitalism, who determines what property is? Who determines what a life is? If I take a slave, but I don't consider him human, are you going to stop me? I've defined him as my property. Who backs that claim up? You claim to own a piece of land. You show me a deed, but I don't care. I build a house there anyways. What are you going to do? Shoot me? Say I write a deed of ownership to all of California to myself. Now everyone in California is on my property. Can I shoot all of them? The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it is reliant on every single person ON EARTH all agreeing that you own the things you claim to own. The moment that circle of trust is broken, you have to initiate force. That opens a whole new window to be kicked in and abused by anyone. If I see someone starving to death in the streets and I give them 5 dollars an hour, they'll work for 5 dollars an hour until they die of malnutrition. Meanwhile, some other asshole is paying all his workers 20 to keep them happy. I'm saving so much money just cycling through employees that I can Underbid my competition until he's out of business. Now I'm the only one in town providing my service. I can jack the prices up and take advantage of everyone. We're human beings. We are BUILT to play the game. Force is necessary in our lives to protect us from ourselves. You may think that's sick and wrong, but it's just a fact. Maybe some day we'll evolved beyond that. Maybe some day we'll see a 0% crime rate and people will stop being corrupt politicians. On that day, when we haven't had a war in 150 years and everyone willingly takes care of everyone else, we'll dismantle our weapons and live a peaceful life. Until then, yes. We need structure we need society to protect us from our own self-destructive nature. That's why we created it to begin with.

I would have loved to ask this guy what “property rights” and “ownership” are determined by in the absence of a government. Who exactly backs the “titles” and “deeds” that private property require?

I got a package in yesterday, and another one today. Both came USPS. I imagine this caller won't have any useful advice on how I can get my root powder and empty gel caps emailed next time.

Sam just said I know there is rampant crime and corruption within government but in order to stop that we need to give more power to government. LOL.

@Seattle-2017

Ай бұрын

Yeah, because crime and corruption don't exist in the private world, right? What Sam is obviously saying is that we need MORE EFFECTIVE government that is not corrupt, in order to better protect people in an organized society. As opposed to disempowering goverment so that corporations can violate individuals' rights and pollute at will.

To say that Love Canal is an EPA problem and completely ignore how it got there sums up libertarianism perfectly. Please, please go look up Love Canal. Then go look up Bhopal

Let me get this straight: Libertarians think that people acting in their own self interest would create a better society because we would choose for ourselves, and yet we can't choose our leaders because we are too stupid to know they are corrupted? So which one is it? Are we enlightened or are we stupid?

@Seattle-2017

Ай бұрын

Excellent point. THe whole self-interest thing is a debate in itself. Libertarians seem to think that, in their ideal world, self-interests would either never conflict, or they would magically work themselves out in a world with no ultimate central authority. As opposed to feudalism, which is the inevitable outcome of libertarianism, and which ironically, libertarians seem to not know much about. And they never seem to accept the fact that, in our current society, voting is the means of changing our leadership.

the reason i mentioned trust in institutions is because our regulatory system is a crucial part of that infrastructure. some think that if you simply remove regulations we will have the same infrastructure but a freer & more prosperous market. wrong. the best investments are those accountable not only to shareholders but to the public. internal auditing is only accountable to shareholders & their only concern is profit.

I don’t see how they admit that cooperations even under regulation try to dump waste in our water. But they somehow believe with no regulation they won’t just dump more waste in the water.

“i can't walk into a store and expect them to accept anything other than state sanctioned currency for exchange” 1- In Some places in the U.S., stores accept “other things” besides “state sanctioned currency” as exchange 2- You can sell the product of your labor in exchange for “state sanctioned currency”, then you can go to a store and buy things. The same way is in Scandinavian countries.

I am running out of these videos of Sam seder absolutely destroying libertarians because I have watched all of them.

I love these debates. :D

I used to be a Libertarian about 40 years ago when I was in college. Like most young people I support individual freedom. But since that time I have learned many, many things. There are too many to list, but you will find then too if you start studying human history and anthropology. And, if U carefully pay attention 2 those who represent the Libertarian Party N the US. I will leave it at that for now because, as I said, It takes too mich time and I am 62 and I want to enjoy my time. Good luck.

He makes the point that we need to become a different organism as in; We basicaly need to loose all emotion and everyone must evolve into this perfect being that never aims to do any evil, Then Libertarian ideals might work....

Philosophy, is literally on the entire basis of subjectivity. It is a process of asking why and pondering every possible interpretation that could be made. It literally does anything BUT find a definitive answer for anything.

Anything can be used as currency so as long as all parties involved agree to use it.

"Why not stay in the country side and live the good life." Possibly because the entire economy was mechanising and developments in farming rendered a huge proportion of them unemployed? "Why did the UK, a tiny island, rule the world." First country to industrialise, "capitalism raised up the whole over time" Eventually, once it's excesses were ameliorated through the collective action of the workers. I never said that properly regulated capitalism with proper work place protections was bad.

"i can't walk into a store and expect them to accept anything other than state sanctioned currency for exchange." What would you like to use as exchange, instead of "state sanctioned currency"??

Corporations are in bed with gov't. So we need more gov't. Sam Seder spoken like a true statist.

I'll donate a chicken and a bushel of corn Sam.

I agree with that, and that is true. People value different things, differently which you cannot measure.

" THEY'RE PAYING ME WITH GOVERNMENT TENDER!" Amazing 😂

Both of these guys lost valid argument when they agreed that "less pollution is better than more pollution." This is a contingency, not a tautology. What about absolutely no pollution at all? Millions of people would starve or die because of the cease of production.

Grandiose freedom-talk isn't an argument. In a civilized cooperative society with an elected representational government, authority is divided.

What an enlightened and well-stated argument.

Nobody seems to realise that since the 70 ' s the major western financial systems have run on the 'human standard' ; the amount of money a nation can borrow and request from their central bank is limited by 2 factors. Firstly, how many children are born and registered and the projected taxation which can be wrought from them in the future and, secondly, how many acts and statutes the government can implement and how much income in fines etc.they are expected to yield. The really sick truth is that the millions of poor people working themselves to the bone and still unable to escape poverty literally comprise the collateral against which the money is loaned.

Seder doesn't want to debate - he just wants to shout and interrupt.

That's wrong. You misunderstood the (classic and often used) metaphor. The sharpened stick (or rod, or net, depending on who's telling the tale) that you use to catch the fish is capital. The trout you catch is the return on investment. This metaphor was popularized by Irwin Schiff in his book "How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't."

That is simply untrue. Believing a person has the right, and capacity, to make their own decisions does not mean they are also inherently selfish. It simply means they do not want others to compel them.

“This has to be a joke. Businesses would pollute on their property regardless of what the state does.” Businesses can pollute *their* property, but I was refering to cases in which businesses pollute other people's property and the govt has not protected the property rights of individuals. For example: the American courts during the late and as far back as the early-nineteenth century made the deliberate decision to allow property rights of individuals to be violated by industrial smoke.

Where does it say that? All I see is that in Article 1 Section 10 it says "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" in reference to STATES, not the federal government. And it's only in regards to payments of debts.

“forcing any system on people is a problem, whether it's capitalism or democracy” Capitalism cannot be forced on people, because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to.

“I'm not about to allow such deep drilling since it has a chance of setting off earthquakes as has been seen with fracking.” 1- Gold mining and fracking are two different things. 2- Gold mines in the U.S. can go as nine thousand feet depth, and they haven't caused earthquakes.

"If people don't want a job, they don't take it. Obviously, the jobs that the evil barons were offering were better than the alternatives." People often have little choice and when your choice is, accept the one job on offer regardless of the conditions or you and your family may starve, it is hardly a choice at all and accepting the job is in no way an endorsement of the job. I don't think i ever referred to individuals within the system as evil.

I love these videos... I could not tell you why, though.

i was going to get into this but i'll just go with: AHahahahahahahahaha..

Also, just because i made a mistake about swiss's fed, doesn't mean none of my countries make sense. Not to mention Switzerland is the 5th freest country in the world, so it still does.

3) That's absolutely right! Which is why it provides an incentive, even in free market situations, to treat workers well. If an employer BENEFITS from treating his employee well, why should the government have to step in? Do you honestly think that businesses would all the sudden stop treating employees well if the government removed regulations? Of course not. Employers that treat employees well both attract high caliber workers and increase productivity, like you said. cont....

Yes, the show takes donations... Which is on KZread... Which is part of the market with regulations, which pays with the currency that is controlled by the government which gives it value. I mean to just essentialize it all to make your example work is just more of the same candy land thinking that is all too common with libertarians. I hope for the sake of everyone we never live in the world this guy imagines.

Just because it doesn't stop them 100% doesn't mean it doesn't limit their number. The main problem I see in libertarians, they don't get that an imperfect solution is still better than no solution at all.

We may have to take a step back and reconsider the premise of this question. If someone in the 18th century were to ask an abolitionist, "Hey, why haven't we seen large-scale successful societies without slavery? Slavery is obviously integral to the workings of society and shouldn't be removed." The abolitionist could respond in a number of ways -- it doesn't really matter. Looking back now, we know that slavery was wrong. The ABSENCE of a thing is not due to its value or lack thereof.

The main difference is that the State exists purely by violating private property. Whereas legitimate property owners maintain their own property with their own resources, states steal resources from others to maintain land (and indeed the institution altogether), making arguments such as "Well they made the roads doesn't that mean it is theirs?" moot.

if i look up how the internet started on the interned what happends ?

@choosetolivefree

10 жыл бұрын

Are you trying to say that the Internet only exists because of government? Oh boy. It would have been invented one way or another REGARDLESS of government. It was simply the fact that military are able to take advantage of advanced technologies due to STEALING money from the public. The Internet would have existed with or without government.

@SpaceCowboy1218

10 жыл бұрын

the universe collapses. And... libertarians get upset.

@alexandros3362

10 жыл бұрын

Jared Berg lol ! good one

5:29 - Actually, that's not true. There is coercion. Sam is holding some of his content hostage and won't hand it over until given money.

You don't want to have a real debate. You just want to move on to your next insult.

I do put my faith in those countries, because many of them are not staring economic collapse in the face and laughing it off like we are. When the US was number 1 on this list (in the 50s) we had the highest average wages, and the lowest cost products anywhere in the world. If you want to watch a libertarian society unfold, I suggest you watch the people at Blueseed very closely, because that is exactly what they are starting, though it may not be immediately obvious.

So, according to Harrison the Libertarian, the trout I catch for dinner isn't a fish, it's CAPITAL!

@matrixman8582

5 жыл бұрын

It is if it can be sold or traded

Being able to pay taxes does not give currency value Sam this is econ 101 for a currency to have value it has to be finite hard or impossible to duplicate an easy to break down numerically for exchange then it has to be exchanged on a certain level on the market for it to have a value

Where was he owned? The fact that the other guy made so little sense that Sam had trouble responding didn't mean the guy won.

All Sam's really saying is that the government is essential to the free market. The government needs to be the arbitrator between labor and capital. It's a delicate balance and no one side of the scale should gain too much power over the other. Regulations of labor and capital are necessary to ensure a more harmonious existence. Governments do have a role to play in market stabilisation and in a democracy are the voice of the people (which needs to be heard).

1- There's a very legit reason why *businesses* would want a centralized regulatory agency: it just makes things smoother. Smaller businesses know what the standards are and know what they should be doing. 2- Sure but this is a non-sequitur. 3- This has to be a joke. Businesses would pollute on their property regardless of what the state does.

P.J. Proudhon, Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Dyer D. Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre, etc. etc.

Well, libertarianism is a relatively broad political philosophy. Libertarians ranged from anarcho capitalists to small government advocates who advocate for only government to protect property. There are libertarians who believed that "intellectual property " is true property and then there are libertarians who don't believed in intellectual property.

did you sign anything when you walked into a restaurant to agree to pay for the meal after? Did you sign a contract when you set up your doctors appointment, & got a physical? Did you sign a contract when you took a parking ticket at a local garage? Nope. No signature was required, it was implied. The simple action of you doing something created it. You living daily in this country created taxes. Your ability to understand implied contracts isn't societies problem. It is yours

When Seder says he wants to be paid in government tender, the caller should have pointed out that the tender is not being issued by government. A cartel of private banks currently owns and operates the money monopoly

I have never heard his argument used in this context before, it is the type of argument used in defence of slavery. It is flawed for several reasons. 1) The system of distribution and production exists to serve people, not the other way around. If the system doesn't benefit the people it can not be justified. 2) It wasn't the capitalists who gave people work place protections, it was via acts of parliament in response to the deaths and outcry. 3) Workers are more productive wen treated well.

No clue what that caller said or was talking about at any point

But its not just that. Sam also works in the context of a gov that paid for the roads he gets to work on, the cable lines the gov heavily financed, etc... The subsidies the gov gave to nearly everything that has been built in this country, from electrical system to sewage. Always reminds me of I think it was SKorea where they didnt have taxes but also no road system. They needed one, taxed, built it, business boomed, the rest is history.

1- Free-market can have its own regulations. 2- Government is the biggest polluter. 3- Businesses pollute because government has failed to protect property rights.

Libertarians need to focus on one point, and rambling on and on about a magical society where everything is voluntary. The caller knows what he's talking about, but he needs to remember who is speaking to. If he just focused on facts about the EPA and the inverse effetcs of it - he would have made his point a lot clearer. Focus, people.

I don't know about liberals but as a progressive I have never been on the wrong side of history and Libertarians have always been on the wrong side. Most Libertarians eventually grow up and realize this after their Ayn Rand phase in college. I wish you well.

Philosophy is a science like math? Er, no. The guy said law is an opinion with a gun - well, at least law has the gun. Philosophy is just an opinion.

@andrewlunceford5503

7 жыл бұрын

Philosophers can have guns too

@weejockpoopongmcplop

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for that.

Rape , murder and theft still occur despite laws. Consumption of certain narcotics still go on despite the fact that certain narcotics are illegal.

No my friend, Him serving in the army doesn't really conflict with his beliefs on GOVT, even in his perfect libertarian world the GOVT will still have an army. If we take your logic the Libertarian Army would never be able to fight anyone as they would be forcing there enemies to do something.

I hear Libertarians go on rants like this: "Why all the taxes? If someone gets sick or needs help then their family/church/neighbors/community will take care of them." Yea. Isn't that what our taxes are doing? Am I missing something? How does this make sense?

perhaps i should have clarified earlier that im only opposed to income tax? taxes on services and sales are entirely justified so the government should always have funds. no one steals your money in a free market economy because it is privately funded. you want something, pay for it. you dont want something, dont pay for it.

So my question is if I as a Libertarian said Citizens United must be outlawed, does that mean my proposed smaller government would still be corrupt? I can't neccessarily speak for this guy on all accounts but it is in fact possible to simplify our grossly oversized, imperial government. You'd have to start by cutting corporate money out of ALL levels of government, without it, we won't get anywhere under any political philosophy.

I never said that, nor implied it. Specify what you don't get about my statement and I'll try and explain it a little better.

9:24 - I take it Seder has never read James C. Scott or Pierre Clastres, or Engels or Kropotkin for that matter.

Would you use a gun to make someone build a library? It’s that simple.

His example was catching a fish on a deserted island with no gov't present to own the water. Plus you already pay fees to the gov't to maintain beaches, its called taxes. And if you wanna fish, you have to pay the gov't to get their permission, licensing.

We need stricter laws, regulations so that everyone is free to do as he/she please, but can't abuse the system of governance. In a way we need more government, and not less. Less Government as you have it in USA is reason why you have mess that you have. In EU things are more stricter, still not strict enough,I'd love to see Finish, Scandinavian model in place, with strict adherence to laws. Corruption in Scandinavia is very low, even corporate corruption, laws there are very strict.

Punish corporations that donate heavily to decide elections with jail time to the CEO, COO, and the board. That does not make you a nanny state, it shows your citizens that you actually WANT to rid your political system of this corruption. It can be done IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT BAD ENOUGH!

What makes you think that regulators have any idea of how a nuclear power plant should run? The people you should trust to run a nuclear power plant are the people that invest huge amounts of money and time into trying to build and operate one, because they probably rely upon its continued function for their livelihood. Simply put, the business that runs a nuclear power plant (or any other business) has much more incentive to make sure that it runs smoothly and safely than a bureaucrat.

A serious question. Can a libertarian explain to me how the average folk (the majority) would be protected from corporate tyranny?

i am not a proponent of pure socialism. forcing any system on people is a problem, whether it's capitalism or democracy (as we've seen in the middle east). given the tendencies of people at this time to prefer both democracy and capitalism there should be a compromise which is a mixed economy (most successfully implemented in Scandanavian countries who have the highest standard of living per capita and score the highest in the happiness/contentment).